Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Sorry,pls manage. Anyhow, whether those species which are used for human food are not idiots since they do not understand nurshing, love, feed, shelter etc are given by their owners for an ultimate intention to slaughter them. Also they usually come back to owners house, even if set free. Ok?

Sorry,pls manage. Anyhow, whether those species which are used for human food are not idiots since they do not understand nurshing, love, feed, shelter etc are given by their owners for an ultimate intention to slaughter them. Also they usually come back to owners house, even if set free. Ok?

All we have learned so far in this thread is that your magical thinking extends to anthropomorphism, and that you think that livestock that escape usually return to their owners (although you have provided no evidence for this). And that you seem to think that plants ought to take some sort of action against their oppressors.

__________________"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Sorry,pls manage. Anyhow, whether those species which are used for human food are not idiots since they do not understand nurshing, love, feed, shelter etc are given by their owners for an ultimate intention to slaughter them. Also they usually come back to owners house, even if set free. Ok?

Not our job to manage/correct..... Your job to write it out clearly and understandably. This is true of everyone here!!!!!!!

As to the above, it is lacking in clarity and most of us will not make any effort to clarify it as you show no interest in doing so or learning how to do so.

__________________There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

I feel, none in topic subject, nor the ņature, but it cān be mistaken identity to ús like eldest brother, guardian or parent type. Somewhat overestimate/overbelief that whoever nurse n love or who is senier will not kill. ?

I have no idea what you are talking about!

__________________/dann"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Yes, but from our POV, we should also see, what we are getting and what we are forcibly taking.

That's a completely meaningless response. Our own point of view may be important in some way, but it does not change what a plant does, or what nature is, how it grows, or why. To believe otherwise is ill-considered mystical mush.

If plants had a point of view, I suppose all harvesting would be seen as forcible but what difference does this make? To the poet, perhaps, the ivy assaults the wall, but a metaphor for the way the world works is not an insight into individual thoughts. Nature is arranged as it is. "Frogs Eat Butterflies. Snakes Eat Frogs. Hogs Eat Snakes. Men Eat Hogs.

There are of course some people who believe they are enlightened or ennobled by becoming more aware of their place in nature, but the plants themselves do not know who is a friend or foe of their species. In the land of vegetables individuality is elusive. If you live on fallen fruit like Lowell's prison pacifist companion, or talk to the corn like a Hopi, you do it for yourself.

You should get your muddy feet out of the world of medicine and read more poetry.

__________________I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Even then, others are slaughtered in front of them, still their behavior seems not change.

Do you understand the concept of concepts? Most animal life has no real concept of life/not life. Thus, their concepts do not change in the presence of what would be evidence to more developed animal life. You are now free to ponder the Meaning ofLife!!!!!

__________________There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

1. They come back, even if they look other animals are slaughtered in front of them.

2. Is it humans to those animal interactions or animal to animal also and if not, do they expect some more naturally from humans?

3. Can it just be their nature in the benefit of humans?

Item 2 is meaningless as written. Really, this is not a joke, it is actually meaningless as it is written.

Item 1 is a true statement insofar as it is possible to translate it into meaningfully phrased English but otherwise, JUST a statement. Item 3 is a very poorly phrased question and, as written, is pretty much pointless.

__________________There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Could you possibly replace seiner with the correct word to which you refer? Or present a definition of seiner that makes it clear as an actual word in English and is applicable to your point??

In a sudden flash of insight, I suspect he means "senior". While it doesn't make his posts make sense, at least it makes them comprehensibly nonsensical.

Dave

__________________Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

In a sudden flash of insight, I suspect he means "senior". While it doesn't make his posts make sense, at least it makes them comprehensibly nonsensical.

Dave

Kumar is making a kind of sense.

Doktor Professor Seiner Most was Dozent im Tierekraftliche Artz at the Swiss Institute of Quackery in Plotz from 1934 to 1887. He studied and self-published in the field that Kumar is referring to, and finished his career in the Lachenakademie.

Kumar is too modest to appeal to authority. He drops hints and expects us to pick them up, compost them, and spread them on our pastures anew.

__________________Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

No, none of that is what actually happens in animals bred for food. Animals generally don't see others slaughtered, at least in a commercial slaughterhouse, because it's a restrained, individualized process. And let's say, in the hypothetical case, one hog sees the one in front of it slaughtered. It's too late then. What's he going to do, text all the other hogs?

I feel, none in topic subject, nor the ņature, but it cān be mistaken identity to ús like eldest brother, guardian or parent type. Somewhat overestimate/overbelief that whoever nurse n love or who is senier will not kill. ?

That's a completely meaningless response. Our own point of view may be important in some way, but it does not change what a plant does, or what nature is, how it grows, or why. To believe otherwise is ill-considered mystical mush.

If plants had a point of view, I suppose all harvesting would be seen as forcible but what difference does this make? To the poet, perhaps, the ivy assaults the wall, but a metaphor for the way the world works is not an insight into individual thoughts. Nature is arranged as it is. "Frogs Eat Butterflies. Snakes Eat Frogs. Hogs Eat Snakes. Men Eat Hogs.

There are of course some people who believe they are enlightened or ennobled by becoming more aware of their place in nature, but the plants themselves do not know who is a friend or foe of their species. In the land of vegetables individuality is elusive. If you live on fallen fruit like Lowell's prison pacifist companion, or talk to the corn like a Hopi, you do it for yourself.

You should get your muddy feet out of the world of medicine and read more poetry.

Sorry, will reality not be what we are getting and what we are giving in exchange?

No, none of that is what actually happens in animals bred for food. Animals generally don't see others slaughtered, at least in a commercial slaughterhouse, because it's a restrained, individualized process. And let's say, in the hypothetical case, one hog sees the one in front of it slaughtered. It's too late then. What's he going to do, text all the other hogs?

Have you ever actually been to a farm?

At our place, it happens. Say like in a Chicken Broiler shop. Anyway, we can assume, suppose they see, will they still come back to home or not?

I think it is an Idiocy from the POV of animals. They over believe their owners who initially nurse them, even show love to them. They may feel, whoever is nurshing them or loving them, will not harm them. Say like a guardian, parent etc.

Sorry, will reality not be what we are getting and what we are giving in exchange?

Huh? Is that meant, in some obscure and yet to be explained way, to relate to what I wrote? We get reality by not being stupid and imagining things that are not true. We do not give reality. It's already there.

A modest start could be made by making responses at least appear relevant to the subject under discussion. Even downright error is a step up from gibberish.

__________________I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Huh? Is that meant, in some obscure and yet to be explained way, to relate to what I wrote? We get reality by not being stupid and imagining things that are not true. We do not give reality. It's already there.

A modest start could be made by making responses at least appear relevant to the subject under discussion. Even downright error is a step up from gibberish.

At our place, it happens. Say like in a Chicken Broiler shop. Anyway, we can assume, suppose they see, will they still come back to home or not?

I'm not interested in your assumptions. Your question is based on a premise for which you provide no evidence.

Quote:

I think it is an Idiocy from the POV of animals. They over believe their owners who initially nurse them, even show love to them. They may feel, whoever is nurshing them or loving them, will not harm them. Say like a guardian, parent etc.

No. You have shown no evidence that the animals you describe are capable of that level of cognition. You are simply assuming that animals have the same cognitive and emotional development as humans.

Here such animals are also raised at home. At farm, I don't know if developing individual emotion is practical.

I grew up in Kansas, in American beef country. My brother in law's family owns a ranch in Montana that's large enough to show up as a square on a map of Montana, not merely a dot. What you're trying to attribute to food animals has absolutely no basis in reality. Do you have any evidence that individual food animals raised in single-family domestic situations have any of the cognitive development you're claiming?

I get the distinct feeling that English is not your primary language and I am unable to decipher your meaning. Sorry.

Sorry. Simply, Are those animals not Idiots who misunderstand their owners by over believing them, who initially nurse & love them but slaughter ultimately? Can't say, if those poor animals also feel that their owners being human are senior most among all beings so will consider them like guardian or parents?

Sorry. Simply, Are those animals not Idiots who misunderstand their owners by over believing them, who initially nurse & love them but slaughter ultimately? Can't say, if those poor animals also feel that their owners being human are senior most among all beings so will consider them like guardian or parents?

You've shown no evidence that the food animals you're describing are capable of this degree of cognition. You're assumptively anthropomorphizing them.

May it not be happening at your place but definately happening at my place. Personal experiance.

No, that's special pleading. You've shown no evidence that the food animals with which you're personally acquainted are capable of the degree of cognition you attribute to them.

Quote:

Therefore I said, let us assume...

No, you have provided no basis for rational assumption. You have simply roundly projected human emotional and cognitive processes onto animals. Your question fails because its major premise is an irrational assumption.

No, that's special pleading. You've shown no evidence that the food animals with which you're personally acquainted are capable of the degree of cognition you attribute to them.

No, you have provided no basis for rational assumption. You have simply roundly projected human emotional and cognitive processes onto animals. Your question fails because its major premise is an irrational assumption.

Do you want to impress that they don't feel pain as we feel?

Likewise:

Don't they have natural right to life because nursed by others?

Don't they have right to have emotions, fear, pain and right to believe their elders & nursers?

Further evidence: you can do google search for youtube live presentation by it; "This How American Treat,Kill Animals No Mercy". I hesitate to give link.

Š 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.